Pages:
Author

Topic: 'John Abraham ≈ naim027' Coincidence or Connection? - page 4. (Read 4091 times)

legendary
Activity: 1946
Merit: 3016
For this very reason, adopting such an approach to manage business presence on the forum is flawed. Right now, the forum platform doesn't have the option to create official business profiles like some other platforms do, for example Facebook. So, each account is tied to one person and should ideally be used by just that person. But that doesn't mean businesses can't have more than one representative or staff member on the forum. Each of them can maintain their own accounts and contribute to official threads or answer questions. If one of them gets banned for breaking the rules, the rest are in the clear, and the business presence remains intact.

I know at least one reason why having an additional account for each new representative is not so good idea: you lose an opportunity of editing the first post and so you need to leave it as is even if there are some important updates or to open a new topic for each representative even if they will change each month.

Now back to actual topic. I'm already confused about the exact name of the project in which naim027 worked, Cratoon or Paradice, doesn't matter. If he never said that, we'd never know who was behind the scenes.

So we have two opportunities: or the mentioned project is a part of the group of naim027 and it would be good to prove that. Or he just framed them revealing information about his job. In the second case I don't think it is fair to punish a project.
hero member
Activity: 1428
Merit: 931
🇺🇦 Glory to Ukraine!
That does not mean I have to agree with your interpretation.

My interpretation doesn't require your agreement to be valid. Bitcointalk.org strives to embrace a free-speech-maximalist approach, and that's its charm - everyone has the right to be delightfully wrong!

The ban evasion rule only make sense for accounts that is in use for personal reason - when it's personal accounts.

Nope. For that to apply, moderators would have to go through the entire account history and evaluate each individual post to see if it was made for personal or business reasons. Obviously, that would be impossible.


Well, okay, let's imagine for instance that Tether comes to the forum and opens its topic to share news and answer questions. They hire one representative after another and this goes on for some time.
<...>

For this very reason, adopting such an approach to manage business presence on the forum is flawed. Right now, the forum platform doesn't have the option to create official business profiles like some other platforms do, for example Facebook. So, each account is tied to one person and should ideally be used by just that person. But that doesn't mean businesses can't have more than one representative or staff member on the forum. Each of them can maintain their own accounts and contribute to official threads or answer questions. If one of them gets banned for breaking the rules, the rest are in the clear, and the business presence remains intact.
legendary
Activity: 1946
Merit: 3016
It doesn't matter who you (claim to) represent: bans are personal, they're not limited to an account, but to a person. If I'd get banned, I wouldn't be allowed to create an alt and then say I represent the pope. I think you completely misunderstood how bans on Bitcointalk work.

Well, okay, let's imagine for instance that Tether comes to the forum and opens its topic to share news and answer questions. They hire one representative after another and this goes on for some time. Then it's revealed anyhow that one of those guys they hired was a ban evader during he worked for Tether as their representative. So we say that it was a violation (it was, I don't say wasn't) so we ban an official account of Tether for ban evasion. Moreover it is not an account banned it is a person behind it banned so Tether is forever banned from using this forum. Moreover we find somehow all people who worked for Tether during that time (at least all who worked with that account after ban evader) and we ban also them because they worked in an offending account, and also ban them forever.

You know, maybe it is how all the things are really go on, but if so it looks so wrong! Right because the person is banned from the forum and not an account.

And after all we ask, why projects decide to represent themselves on the forum much less frequently than previously. And really, why?
legendary
Activity: 3290
Merit: 16489
Thick-Skinned Gang Leader and Golden Feather 2021
I am Seva from Paradice.in
Naim sent me a DM asking me to say something here.
I can only say that Naim and John worked for Paradice.in
John resigned on 26th March 2021. While Naim worked with us till 5th May 2023.
Both handled our BitcoinTalk profile. John handled our profile from 2020 to 2021, and Naim handled it from 2021 to 2023.
Naim asked me at least to say that they worked for us. Yes, they worked for us, and we never suspected they could be the same person. During their working time, they worked at different times while our support agents tried not to overlap.
Since you already confirmed the suspected alt accounts have had access to this account in the past, who's to say they're not behind it now?

For some reason if Royse777 is banned, how many will say CasinoCritique is ban evading? There can be another situation too. For some reasons if the casinocritique account receives a temp ban then do you think Royse777 will ban evading?
That's one of the risks of sharing an account with multiple people: you're all liable for anything done with that account. And if it gets banned, I'd say it applies to all alt-accounts that also used the same "shared" account.

Full disclosure: There are few other malfunctioning brains like you and they may agree with you.
Full disclosure: I think I'm one of them Tongue Or else it may be you Tongue

how a business account can be treated as a personal account where it's obvious that the business account was not handled by the single person who was accused to have a ban on the forum?
Bitcointalk doesn't offer "business accounts". It's very simple: when you're banned, you're obviously also not allowed to use someone else's account. Just to be sure, let's ask the author of the unofficial forum rules (I now want to know who gets to have "malfunctioning brains" as personal text).
legendary
Activity: 1820
Merit: 966
In Search of Incredible
I don't think John could be Naim. ~snip~
I am here on request of Naim. I am not here to prove anything. ~
I'm wondering why are you making post here on the request of 'naim027' if you don't have anything to prove! It doesn't matter here what you think without any evidence. Haven't you noticed that 'naim027' has risked your account by exchanging merits with his alt?

Did you read that I did not look at that Cratoon account?
I just read your previous reply and noticed that you weren't aware of the merit trading activity which 'naim027' did with 'Cratoon' account.

Keep me excluded however I don't thinking if anyone is defending anyone will result others to risk their reputation. Where did you get that theory?
The second part of the quote was for Paradice representative account, and the theory is merit trading. 'Cratoon' is still making posts on behalf of or on the request of 'naim027' even though he was informed that what 'naim027' did.
legendary
Activity: 1946
Merit: 3016
That's exaggerated to the point of absurdity. But, if the owner of a grocery store is aware that one of their employees is involved in criminal activities, including being a killer, and fails to report them to the authorities, they bear responsibility as it is their legal obligation to do so. In such a scenario, as a customer, would you feel comfortable patronizing such a grocery store?

The main thing in here is IF. If the owner of grocery store is involved in a crime anyhow it should be proved. Otherwise demanding from a project to watch their employees is contrary to a person's right to privacy. I don't want any my employer to shadow me.

But 'naim027' had used the Paradice representative account as his personal property by exchanging merits with his alt accounts. Don't you think it was offensive? Or you will consider it as a part of the business. Seems like you weren't aware of the merit trading history of 'naim027' which he did with the Paradice representative account.

It looks inappropriate but until proven that the owners of Paradice took part in that, we can consider that they are victims in this story also. Because naim027 used their corporate account for personal goals.

I don't know if Paradice are actively involved in this case anyhow but as for now I don't see any direct proofs that they are. If they did anything wrong as a project it should be proven, not just saying that one of their employees did something wrong when was working for them.
legendary
Activity: 2982
Merit: 7986
In theory: If anyone ask me to recommend Nain027 if he add me on his CV for reference then I don't think I am going to tell them anything negative as he worked very well in my business. I have no complain for the job he does for my service.

Oof. This guy obviously has no problem lying to anybody at any given time -- I'd think that would weigh on your decision to act as a reference for him. What would happen in the case that you vouched for him and then he went on to screw over a future employer?


Funny how this turned out to be somewhat prophetic:

I will create 100 more accounts as soon as I can.

I am certain he has more accounts currently at work but he'll be a bit more clever in masking them from hereon out.
legendary
Activity: 2464
Merit: 3878
Visit: r7promotions.com
That official account of Paradice.in is not someone personal property. It's representing a business.
But 'naim027' had used the Paradice representative account as his personal property by exchanging merits with his alt accounts. Don't you think it was offensive? Or you will consider it as a part of the business. Seems like you weren't aware of the merit trading history of 'naim027' which he did with the Paradice representative account.
Understand that my statement was not for naim027, nor for the casino account. I don't want to engage with forum users personal issues with each others. Did you read that I did not look at that Cratoon account?

Anyway are we talking about John Abraham ≈ naim027 or Cratoon ≈ John Abraham ≈ naim027 or ~
This topic was created to find more evidence between 'John Abraham and 'naim027' account. But some other users are trying to risk their reputation by taking the side of the professional liar (naim027) by ignoring the evidence.

Keep me excluded however I don't thinking if anyone is defending anyone will result others to risk their reputation. Where did you get that theory?

In theory: If anyone ask me to recommend Nain027 if he add me on his CV for reference then I don't think I am going to tell them anything negative as he worked very well in my business. I have no complain for the job he does for my service.

Edit:

Your rule does not say anything about account y can not be used by "Mr a" as a part of the group.  It says a person can not use or create another account and the interpretation is for his own personal account/s. In example cases we have seen all these were, their own personal accounts.
I respectfully disagree with your interpretation of the forum (not mine) rule. (Again).

The rule specifically states that you cannot "use or create accounts" as long as one of your accounts is banned. I don't see what is not clear and open to interpretation. Nowhere is the distinction made between "personal" accounts and "business" accounts. I don't know where you got that from.

So, if account X (owned by person X) is banned, then person X is not allowed to manage company Y's account (or any other account) on this platform. The ban evasion rule would not make any sense otherwise.

That does not mean I have to agree with your interpretation.
The ban evasion rule only make sense for accounts that is in use for personal reason - when it's personal accounts.

PS: For a moment I thought I was answering the same person in this post instead of you and OP.
hero member
Activity: 1428
Merit: 931
🇺🇦 Glory to Ukraine!
Your rule does not say anything about account y can not be used by "Mr a" as a part of the group.  It says a person can not use or create another account and the interpretation is for his own personal account/s. In example cases we have seen all these were, their own personal accounts.

I respectfully disagree with your interpretation of the forum (not mine) rule. (Again).

The rule specifically states that you cannot "use or create accounts" as long as one of your accounts is banned. I don't see what is not clear and open to interpretation. Nowhere is the distinction made between "personal" accounts and "business" accounts. I don't know where you got that from.

So, if account X (owned by person X) is banned, then person X is not allowed to manage company Y's account (or any other account) on this platform. The ban evasion rule would not make any sense otherwise.

But, I'd still appreciate hearing more opinions from other senior members or moderators regarding this matter. After all, anyone can make a mistake and misinterpret a rule, just like you have done in the past.


Forget about the rules, how a business account can be treated as a personal account where it's obvious that the business account was not handled by the single person who was accused to have a ban on the forum?

Show me which new account is pretending to represent a fictional business and continue using the forum?

I'll get back to this later because I need some time to gather references.
full member
Activity: 865
Merit: 104
https://paradice.in/?c=bitcointalk
To clarify some things, John has been working with us since 2020 and resigned on March 2021. Naim worked for us from 2020 to 2023, and we had to remove him.

While we don't want to reveal anyone's nationality, John Speaks the native local languages of mine and the CEO.

John was getting more than 3x Salary than Naim when he resigned. It's not a good business for someone to leave the high-salary job and continue doing the same job for a 3x low salary. I don't think John could be Naim.

I have no idea if Naim was banned and if he has multiple accounts. I asked him today, and he said yes, he has. I am not an expert on Bitcointalk. We hire workers for their job. We don't know their personal life. This is non of our business being a crypto casino.

I am here on request of Naim. I am not here to prove anything. I just gave my statement, and it's official. If you don't believe me, I am sorry. I don't have time to convince anyone.
legendary
Activity: 1820
Merit: 966
In Search of Incredible
That official account of Paradice.in is not someone personal property. It's representing a business.
But 'naim027' had used the Paradice representative account as his personal property by exchanging merits with his alt accounts. Don't you think it was offensive? Or you will consider it as a part of the business. Seems like you weren't aware of the merit trading history of 'naim027' which he did with the Paradice representative account.

Anyway are we talking about John Abraham ≈ naim027 or Cratoon ≈ John Abraham ≈ naim027 or ~
This topic was created to find more evidence between 'John Abraham and 'naim027' account. But some other users are trying to risk their reputation by taking the side of the professional liar (naim027) by ignoring the evidence.
legendary
Activity: 2464
Merit: 3878
Visit: r7promotions.com
It seems you overlooked the fact that the Cratoon account was active across multiple boards and forum threads, not solely limited to discussions about Paradice casino. Additionally, there is evidence of a merit hunt in the WO thread, where the user received a significant number of merits from his alt accounts (naim027 and AnotherAlt), and sent them to build his other alt accounts (Crypt0S0ul and John Abraham). That can't be right, can it?
I did not check anything about Cratoon account except found out that it's representing a casino. So if you are talking about Naim027 or AnotherAlt or Crypto0S0ul or John Abraham or anyone else or any other account - nothing is my concern. I am not into that discussion. I even starting with saying that it's in general. I am trying to make a sense why it was so easily overlooked.

I think "ban evasion" is a very simple forum rule. This is how I understand it, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong: If one of your accounts is banned, you, as an individual, are no longer allowed to use this platform, regardless of who you represent or work for. The ban applies to the person, not just the account.
It's not that I don't know how a ban works to a person. Instead of making the font bold for me, do it for some newbie who needs your teaching.

When I have time I will answer you in the other thread, Royse777, my friend.  Cheesy
My friend? No, thank you.
You don't have the quality, status to consider you in my friends circle. You are a low moral pathetic individual. It's better for you if you stay out of my business.
legendary
Activity: 1372
Merit: 2017
I agree 100% with what you say decodx.

The ban applies to the person, not just the account.

Here is the crux of the matter.

When I have time I will answer you in the other thread, Royse777, my friend.  Cheesy
hero member
Activity: 1428
Merit: 931
🇺🇦 Glory to Ukraine!
An employee is not the business, a business is not the employee.

What types of business? Is it sole proprietorship, or perhaps a self-employed person?? A partnership? Limited Liability Company (LLC)? Corporation?  Cheesy

Royse777 is my personal account and CasinoCritique is the business account representing the project casinocritique.com (handled by other members too).
For some reason if Royse777 is banned, how many will say CasinoCritique is ban evading? There can be another situation too. For some reasons if the casinocritique account receives a temp ban then do you think Royse777 will ban evading?

So, you're saying that someone who gets banned can easily create a new account, pretend to represent a fictional (or real) business, and continue using the forum without any consequences? It seems you overlooked the fact that the Cratoon account was active across multiple boards and forum threads, not solely limited to discussions about Paradice casino. Additionally, there is evidence of a merit hunt in the WO thread, where the user received a significant number of merits from his alt accounts (naim027 and AnotherAlt), and sent them to build his other alt accounts (Crypt0S0ul and John Abraham). That can't be right, can it?

I think "ban evasion" is a very simple forum rule. This is how I understand it, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong: If one of your accounts is banned, you, as an individual, are no longer allowed to use this platform, regardless of who you represent or work for. The ban applies to the person, not just the account.


If a killer is working in a grocery store and that grocery store doesn't provide assassination service then that grocery store is not responsible for what its employee is doing outside the store.

That's exaggerated to the point of absurdity. But, if the owner of a grocery store is aware that one of their employees is involved in criminal activities, including being a killer, and fails to report them to the authorities, they bear responsibility as it is their legal obligation to do so. In such a scenario, as a customer, would you feel comfortable patronizing such a grocery store?
legendary
Activity: 1946
Merit: 3016
Whoever is behind it as the person ultimately responsible must ensure that this does not happen, and if he lets it happen, he is allowing ban evading. And I don't care if the account is run as a commune or cooperative with no maximum responsible, they are as responsible as the individual person who is ban evading.

If a killer is working in a grocery store and that grocery store doesn't provide assassination service then that grocery store is not responsible for what its employee is doing outside the store.

When you represent some organisation but not as an owner, you are not representing yourself. So when you use some corporate belongings this doesn't make those belongings yours. Including corporate account. If that account wasn't used in personal purpose it doesn't matter who was behind the scene in any exact moment. Because it was an organisation not a person.

If you'll make an organisation responsible for investigating if their employee hasn't ever been banned on the forum they'll prefer not to work in here at all, because it is nonsense. Their account is representing them, not their employees, who can be changed multiple times during company work.
legendary
Activity: 2464
Merit: 3878
Visit: r7promotions.com
I am waiting for you to tag me now because I employed Naim027.
Sure. Right on top, as you like so much. I'm just going to wait a bit.
Are you saying I like it so much or I said it somewhere (about like and dislike)?
Make sure you are using appropriate reference for it. Why not create a new topic to make a proper reference? Why wait?
Let me guess, you are going to have a meeting with your friends and then all of you will come together at once with your BS arguments.


You mean that when he was banned, apart from working for CasinoCritique he was also working for you?
Nain027 works for campaign management and is a team member like many others. Isn't it should be enough for you? Why anything else matters?
I don't have to tell you who I am employing, when I am employing. I am conducting an dependent business and right now I have many clients and forum members who participated my campaigns, they will rate me. If I ask a group to rate my business then I don't think overall it will bring a bad rating if not 5 out of 5 (although you tried many times in the past to approach my clients and convinced them not to hire my service because you have low moral).


Shut up!

That's the argument you have to counter what I say?
Do you think I give a shit?


We are off-topic. It's now why I employed naim027, is Royse777 taggable? - Type of topic. Go a create a new topic about it. You will have me there.
legendary
Activity: 1372
Merit: 2017
I am waiting for you to tag me now because I employed Naim027.

Sure. Right on top, as you like so much. I'm just going to wait a bit.

Naim027 works on updating my spreadsheets.

You mean that when he was banned, apart from working for CasinoCritique he was also working for you?

Shut up!

That's the argument you have to counter what I say?

legendary
Activity: 2464
Merit: 3878
Visit: r7promotions.com
Royse777 ≈ Cratoon ≈ John Abraham ≈ naim027 now? Grin
You really think I have time for signature spamming, account farming and all these shits?
hero member
Activity: 1036
Merit: 833
I can only say that Naim and John worked for Paradice.in
John resigned on 26th March 2021. While Naim worked with us till 5th May 2023.
Both handled our BitcoinTalk profile. John handled our profile from 2020 to 2021, and Naim handled it from 2021 to 2023.
It doesn't looks weird for you why John and Naim work on the different time frame? although I'm not really sure why John resigned on 2021 when he doesn't link his reputation in this forum. As long as they only work via online and they never met you in real life, it's not a solid evidence to say both of them are different person.


Anyway are we talking about John Abraham ≈ naim027 or Cratoon ≈ John Abraham ≈ naim027 or Royse777 ≈ Cratoon ≈ John Abraham ≈ naim027 now? Grin
legendary
Activity: 2464
Merit: 3878
Visit: r7promotions.com
And by the way, I forgot one thing. If I find out that in CasinoCritique is naim027 as a member of the team or someone who has 11 red tags, I will red tag the account. One bad apple spoils the basket.
Explain why you brought naim027 in the discussion while I was giving a general view without specifying any of the accused account?

Oh one thing you need to know.
Naim027 works on updating my spreadsheets. One of the many team members in 💹📈 Bitcointalk Campaign Management 💪🔥 Signature & Bounty

Some roles that my team members play in the campaign management.
ANN management
Spreadsheet checking
Graphic Designing
Telegram moderation
Content creation
Translation
For each of the jobs I have several people who work to ensure quality service, 24/7 customer service etc. One Naim027 is just a part of the 8 to 10 people who work all the time for campaign management.

I am waiting for you to tag me now because I employed Naim027.
Be my guest.

Whoever is behind it as the person ultimately responsible must ensure that this does not happen, and if he lets it happen, he is allowing ban evading. And I don't care if the account is run as a commune or cooperative with no maximum responsible, they are as responsible as the individual person who is ban evading.
Shut up!

Pages:
Jump to: